America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

I grew up in the 1950s and 60s, back when men getting sexually aggressive with women was considered the norm, as can be seen portrayed in 007 movies of the age. Lots of bad marriages started in the backseats of big Detroit iron, and that became the subject of jokes to this day.

Then women's liberation happened, and it became very uncool for men to get sexually aggressive toward women, but the behavior just got sneakier. From foot massages to cult leaders boinkng everything in sight, the lot of women pretty much stayed the same -- objects of male desire.

Now women are speaking up about past transgressions and making life hard on (er, ah, not that way) men in politics, journalism and entertainment. Unlike the WJ Clinton days, the accusations are toward both Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, and I suppose third parties down the road.

Full disclosure, I was one of those guys in high school. By age 18, I'd outgrown it and didn't get anyone pregnant. Yeah, having seen my older brothers deal with it all did forewarn me about the dangerous territory that biology pushes males into. Learned on my own how to thwart biology -- wasn't that terribly difficult for me. Not that easy either. It's complicated, so I offer a tune to clarify:

Why should men in positions of power be punished for treating women this way?

It's kind of impossible to answer this without context. Each situation is different. If the behavior is illegal, it's illegal. Why should men in positions of power not be permitted to exploit people? Because....it's bad for the victim, and ultimately the rest of society too.

I'm less likely to take claims of abuse from a long, long while ago seriously. In absence of facts (aka evidence) I try to withhold judgement. Evidence requires a lot of things….situational context can be one of the most important.There is also something called "false memory syndrome". It can be hard to tell real memories from imagined ones over time. Also, this stuff can take on a life of its own...which it seems to be doing. Not everything that seems to be perceived as harassment is harassment.For example:If you go to a producer and want a part in a movie, and he tells you that you have to take off your clothes for him to consider it....that is a transaction, not harassment. "But I really really wanted the part!!" Um, okay. Still not harassment.

What difference does marriage make regarding sexual aggression?

Again context matters here. What exactly is meant by the term "sexual aggression"? Within a marriage there's probably a pretty well established understanding of what's okay and what isn't. There should be. Some marriages are really really weird (swingers, et al). Some relationships are really, really weird too. Many of the abuse claims come out after a bad breakup when she thinks back and, "hey that (expletive) did this!" At the time, there was no reason to indicate she thought it out of bounds (quite the contrary), but NOW this past event bothers her a great, great deal.

Why should men in positions of power be punished for treating women this way?

It's kind of impossible to answer this without context. Each situation is different. If the behavior is illegal, it's illegal. Why should men in positions of power not be permitted to exploit people? Because....it's bad for the victim, and ultimately the rest of society too.

I left the question open to allow for context that responders could provide.

QUOTE

I'm less likely to take claims of abuse from a long, long while ago seriously. In absence of facts (aka evidence) I try to withhold judgement. Evidence requires a lot of things….situational context can be one of the most important.There is also something called "false memory syndrome". It can be hard to tell real memories from imagined ones over time. Also, this stuff can take on a life of its own...which it seems to be doing. Not everything that seems to be perceived as harassment is harassment.For example:If you go to a producer and want a part in a movie, and he tells you that you have to take off your clothes for him to consider it....that is a transaction, not harassment. "But I really really wanted the part!!" Um, okay. Still not harassment.

Shouldn't it be a movie part that requires nudity? Otherwise it's a condition of employment, and I see that as crossing the line.

What about people who support the accuser, as in she told them at the time or they were there? Is there such a thing as shared false memory? Maybe so if the stories are rehashed over and over again among the supporting folks. Otherwise I'd expect the stories to be contradicting each other.

QUOTE

What difference does marriage make regarding sexual aggression?

Again context matters here. What exactly is meant by the term "sexual aggression"? Within a marriage there's probably a pretty well established understanding of what's okay and what isn't. There should be. Some marriages are really really weird (swingers, et al). Some relationships are really, really weird too. Many of the abuse claims come out after a bad breakup when she thinks back and, "hey that (expletive) did this!" At the time, there was no reason to indicate she thought it out of bounds (quite the contrary), but NOW this past event bothers her a great, great deal.

How about men who think marriage allows them to physically force sex on their wives? I get all the playtime fantasizing, which isn't really sexual aggression. Sexual aggression is like regular aggression with sex as the final act. It's enjoyed by one, despised by the other, and often has very little to do with sex. Dominance is the key and shame the lock that it opens, and not in any playful way.

Or feel free to define it as you see fit. Left that open on purpose also.

Shouldn't it be a movie part that requires nudity? Otherwise it's a condition of employment, and I see that as crossing the line.

Crossing a line as in rude, boorish, lecherous and piggish? Yes, definitely. The guy is a pig. Crossing the line as in headline news worthy and illegal? No. Sexual harassment is the undue exercise of power (typically by a superior over a subordinate). So if a doctor, a police officer, an employer, a teacher, a leader, a manager ect....does this to a person who is under their authority, it is harassment. If an employer hires a person under false pretenses and later demands sex to maintain employment (or subjects her to unwanted advances, making the work environment intolerable), that's harassment. If the employer hasn't hired the person that's just lecherous annoying conduct. Beyond pay grade, he isn't much different from the owner of a strip club standing at the corner and demanding to see women's racks if they want to work there. Probably a very very bad business move, but not illegal. Flip it to a different profession and say the hospital director is demanding nudity at his interviews. Still not illegal, but he'd probably be fired for unprofessional behavior....really, really quickly. Not sure what's considered professional and unprofessional behavior in the entertainment industry but observing the types of relationships and families celebrities generally have it's probably a much different standard than the average person is accustomed to.

QUOTE

What about people who support the accuser, as in she told them at the time or they were there?

It would depend on what the evidence would indicate. But presumption of innocence is the standard in this country, and it should remain the standard.

QUOTE

Is there such a thing as shared false memory?

I'm not sure. But some famous cases, like the McMartin preschool trial make it clear that false memory syndrome can be a group phenomenon.

QUOTE

How about men who think marriage allows them to physically force sex on their wives?

What about them? Do you think someone here advocates rape? It's pretty clear rape and abuse are wrong. What worries me is when presumption of innocence is thrown out and charges made many many years after the fact with no basis in evidence nor means to obtain evidence.

QUOTE

I get all the playtime fantasizing, which isn't really sexual aggression. Sexual aggression is like regular aggression with sex as the final act. It's enjoyed by one, despised by the other, and often has very little to do with sex. Dominance is the key and shame the lock that it opens, and not in any playful way.

I think most people realize that, AM. The explanation does not play out like a textbook in reality. I've seen a great, great deal in a past few years. What I've learned is, incomplete information leads to inaccurate conclusions time and again. A while ago, Jagwease mentioned something called mens rea in sexual assault cases. It means "guilty mind". In other words, the assaulter had to know (using the reasonable person standard) that the victim did not want the sex at the time. I'm not going to get into salacious details, but I've seen many many cases where this standard was not met, and the situation so confusing it is very very easy to see why the ostensible culprit did not know the ostensible victim did not want sex. It's actually more the norm, in my experience with the USAF cases at least, than the exception.

Shouldn't it be a movie part that requires nudity? Otherwise it's a condition of employment, and I see that as crossing the line.

Crossing a line as in rude, boorish, lecherous and piggish? Yes, definitely. The guy is a pig. Crossing the line as in headline news worthy and illegal? No. Sexual harassment is the undue exercise of power (typically by a superior over a subordinate). So if a doctor, a police officer, an employer, a teacher, a leader, a manager ect....does this to a person who is under their authority, it is harassment. If an employer hires a person under false pretenses and later demands sex to maintain employment (or subjects her to unwanted advances, making the work environment intolerable), that's harassment. If the employer hasn't hired the person that's just lecherous annoying conduct. Beyond pay grade, he isn't much different from the owner of a strip club standing at the corner and demanding to see women's racks if they want to work there. Probably a very very bad business move, but not illegal. Flip it to a different profession and say the hospital director is demanding nudity at his interviews. Still not illegal, but he'd probably be fired for unprofessional behavior....really, really quickly. Not sure what's considered professional and unprofessional behavior in the entertainment industry but observing the types of relationships and families celebrities generally have it's probably a much different standard than the average person is accustomed to.

Legality might depend on state law, not federal, like the right-to-work laws. But until I know any better, I'll go along with your take.

QUOTE

QUOTE

What about people who support the accuser, as in she told them at the time or they were there?

It would depend on what the evidence would indicate. But presumption of innocence is the standard in this country, and it should remain the standard.

Right, but the legality of something isn't the only factor when it comes to punishment. Public opinion plays a big role in this whole thing, from advertisers pulling out to people voting against so-and-so. Multiple accusers could mean a great deal in these ways.

QUOTE

QUOTE

Is there such a thing as shared false memory?

I'm not sure. But some famous cases, like the McMartin preschool trial make it clear that false memory syndrome can be a group phenomenon.

Ah yes, the Satanic mass delusion of the 1980s. Two things I took away from that was 1) children are easily led by adults, and 2) parents get themselves into a hot frenzy over protecting their kids. The differences strike me as significant regarding what's going on with the current allegations. However, modern neuroscience supports the idea that every time a memory is recalled, it changes. That might explain why the accused men are having a hard time recalling the incidents -- if recall changes the memory, might suppression eliminate the memory?

QUOTE

QUOTE

How about men who think marriage allows them to physically force sex on their wives?

What about them? Do you think someone here advocates rape? It's pretty clear rape and abuse are wrong. What worries me is when presumption of innocence is thrown out and charges made many many years after the fact with no basis in evidence nor means to obtain evidence.

I really have no worries about that, but I do know that certain religions allow men to abuse their wives based on ancient scriptures. That's how marriage can make a big difference.

If men in power get punished based only on accusations, well, that's just the price of power -- like how losing privacy is a price of celebrity. Sucks, but there it is. So be careful. Maybe not so careful as the VP, Pence, but keep yer hands t'yerself.

Mere accusations don't hold up in court, usually, for men in power. I do agree with you that for legal action to be taken, better evidence needs to be brought forward. But then there are the punishments I mentioned earlier that are based on public opinion impacting the bottom line of corporations.

I don't know how it works in the military, only what I've read about scandals at the AFA, mostly. But I do know how stupid a lot of men can be, especially the young ones, so guess I'm prejudiced. Asking outright for sex is very difficult for young men who don't get laid often, if at all. I was lucky in college in that there were too many young women eager to bed me, so I got to practice for real adult life. This isn't to brag -- I just happened to be desirable in the 1970s (motorcycle, guitar, long thick hair, an attitude, and there was a lot of pot). What I thought was cool when I was 10 turned out to be golden in my 20s. I had also gained the ability to go through long dry periods while on spirit quests, long stories there of not much interest to anyone else.

Anyway, I was very, very lucky. Apparently, a lot of men around my current age were not, and so they flubbed up royally. Now they're paying their dues. It's better to pay those while young and resilient, also with a lot less to lose. Still, I'm not very sympathetic, that being part of the prejudice -- I did it right, why not you? Ah, luck and more luck? Certainly not superior genes or character or smarts. Just plain old ordinary dumb luck.

Right, but the legality of something isn't the only factor when it comes to punishment. Public opinion plays a big role in this whole thing, from advertisers pulling out to people voting against so-and-so. Multiple accusers could mean a great deal in these ways.

Yes, there are all sorts of ways to punish a person outside of locking him or her up, when there is no evidence against them.

But that's usually called fake news, and we've generally agreed that's not something to be encouraged.

Not fake news: Mel Gibson is caught on tape yelling racial slurs at a police officer.

Fake news equivalent: Mel Gibson is accused of making racial slurs 30 years ago, without evidence, from a person who claims to have seen it.

I think the second is a very very bad standard for ruining a person's life. Because....absence of evidence, it might not be true.

This mass hysteria reminds me very much of a middle school standard for evidence. Maybe that's what social media has done. Created confirmation environments where the truth doesn't matter, only what is believed to be true.

Absence of evidence, I think it's best to give the accused the benefit of the doubt. If a person is truly a violent criminal, pervert, or whatnot, there should be more than hearsay evidence of the fact over decades of time. (I think Weinstein, for instance, has some actual evidence against him that is being taken to court)

Right, but the legality of something isn't the only factor when it comes to punishment. Public opinion plays a big role in this whole thing, from advertisers pulling out to people voting against so-and-so. Multiple accusers could mean a great deal in these ways.

Yes, there are all sorts of ways to punish a person outside of locking him or her up, when there is no evidence against them.

But that's usually called fake news, and we've generally agreed that's not something to be encouraged.

Acknowledging how people work is not encouraging fake news. It is simply accepting that people often believe what they want, and there's nothing new about this. I do agree that social media has made this human condition worse, as in spreading fakery more efficiently, and something is being done about it. I don't think it's enough, but then I am no fan of social media. I rate it among the most damaging uses of technology, along with poorly secured personal information and gaming systems like Amazon via phony reviews of products.

But if men in power are not aware of the possibilities, that's on them. They should never even think of treating women like sex objects -- for their own self-protection, if nothing else. And then there's the situation of being set up, which I have witnessed in corporate America land more than once. Were the targets without sin? Hell no, horn dogs every one of them, and their enemies used this weakness against them. A classic example is Bill Clinton, but others were targeted before him.

Then you have the situation that got Trump into power: People who don't care at all and fall for the conman. Can't pin that on either fake news or social media -- it's basic human foolishness.

Like I said before, it sucks. But with greater power comes greater responsibility, and this area is very often overlooked. Should these men be punished?

I don't see how they can avoid it without getting a lot smarter than they are. It's like falling off a cliff upon approaching too close and with no safety line. Gravity, like human nature, just does its thing like it always does.

What amazes me is how power blinds men, how ambition leads them down roads ending in traps. It seems all too obvious to me, like watching two trains approaching each other on the same track from a bird's eye view. It's a classical plot in tragedies. Maybe they should have read more Shakespeare?

It's so unfair! But not as unfair as powerless men being imprisoned for decades when they did nothing wrong, powerless people getting shot dead by those paid to protect them, and a whole host of other examples.

Ah well, the higher you get, the harder you fall. Except for the above examples.

Crikey, even Garrison Keillor has been fingered as a sexual miscreant. Er, yeah, I'd seen him drool all over some of his young female guests, so maybe not so surprising. And while I was a fan of his radio show, it was for the humor and musical guests. Don't think I would have liked him on a personal level, had that opportunity ever happened. I have the same take regarding Lewis C.K., except for the music part.

BTW, Keillor's radio program was also video recorded -- that's how I witnessed his creepy behavior. You know, for those who might think it's clever to point out it was indeed a radio show.

Anyway, the biggest problem I see for hotshot male entertainers is that they get all sorts of attention from beautiful women who want a break into the big time, and this builds an illusion that the women are actually interested in bedding them. No, the women are interested in their own careers, and that's all. If the entertainer helps out and then expects sex in some form, that's the behavior of an immature man who doesn't have much sexual moxie to begin with. And so the high and mighty fall down.

It's similar to politicians and the power they have. Add corporate players in there, both of the male variety. I rather doubt that women have the same problem, but maybe so. I imagine it'd be a game with very different rules.

The problem may be insurmountable due to the frequency of opportunities to mess up. Seems that the safe road leads to a Pence-like fear of being alone with a woman who isn't his wife, and that's not so good either.

Maybe instead of boner pills, men need the opposite. I've heard that saltpeter in the milk does the trick -- but it is just hearsay. A far better solution is to never get fooled, especially by one's self, which could be out of reach for the vast majority of humans -- both male and female. Universal hubris.

To put it into a crude aphorism, don't hunt your meat where you make your bread. It's insensitive and nasty, but true. And it goes for equally powerful coworkers. Here's why:

1) Relationships are hard enough without having to deal with each other in the workplace. Lots of comedy is based on this fact.

2) Do you really want your significant other to possibly be your boss down the road? Not me. Probably not anyone.

3) Boredom is bound to happen in any relationship. Why accelerate the process by spending so much time together?

Some people can pull it off, so I'm told. I've just never seen this happen unless there's significant physical distance at the workplace and very little, if any, interactions via various business media.

In any case, the good thing is that men, the ones who aren't fools for those stockings, will be more cautious, and that will reduce the amount of harassment women have to deal with. The bad/good thing is that romance will have to become more upfront and honest at the get-go. I don't see much loss there, but others probably think that's a crying shame.

This also goes for sexually aggressive women. I've never met one of those.

This was due to his actions toward women before he became a Senator, one stupid move caught on still camera. Since he took his time making this decision to resign, I have to wonder if there's a grander strategy being worked. Maybe the Democrats figure his office will be filled by another Democrat, and maybe that gamble is safe with Trump in office. If not, maybe the idea is to make Republicans look very bad for defending Trump and Moore, possibly others, thereby helping to win the House majority in 2018. That would mean articles for impeachment of Trump would get off the ground in 2019. Or both strategies might coexist.

Lawrence O'Donnell is thinking along the lines of Democrats taking a moral high road on women's rights to not be harassed or assaulted by male politicians:

I don't know, the irrational hatred of Democrats is a tough nut to crack. For example, people who are against Obamacare are all for it if it's given a different name. This has been shown in Kentucky and probably elsewhere. On the other hand, it's a pretty sure bet that Republicans will fight to the end defending their, um, less than admirable politicians. And with Trump dragging the party down, reversing this could be impossible for Republicans by November, 2018.

Meanwhile, I bet things get real polite in DC for those smart enough to change their ways. Yet that could be irrelevant for those on the known creep list -- just because they haven't been called out yet doesn't mean they're home free.